Slavoj Zizek and the rise of authoritarian capitalism

[MrQwertyasd]

Leftist thought has mostly drifted away from Marxism. There’s lots of people who would draw inspiration from Marxism or present themselves as some sort of post-Marixst, but Zizek is one of the few prominent thinkers these days who is close to a traditional Marxist. I think presenting one small aspect of his economic ideas without that context (which didn’t show up until pretty far down the page) makes it really difficult to actually discuss them!

Who the hell reads Marx now ? I only read the Communist Manifesto, there’s no way I want to wade through Capital without someone holding my hand through it. I think that’s probably true for most people who aren’t dedicated specialists. i don’t really know how traditional he is, TBH.

I do think that the success of those welfare states in creating a stable middle class is something Marx clearly did not anticipate. Sure, these days with globalization the middle class in the developed world seems to be somewhat on the retreat, but it’s growing hugely in the developing world.

It’s THE political fight in Europe. The UK tories are severely going after the welfare state in a maniacally way. Zizek is pessimistic about this, thinks the Euro right is on the ascendant.

Imperialism isn’t the same thing as liberal democracy though. Admittedly, yes, the development of those Western liberal democracies in the often benefited enormously from the imperialism that came before, but particularly in Europe the final stage of liberal democracy came with the end of imperialism.

Yeah I just meant that the capitalism as it developed from the 18th century was intimately linked with imperialism - materials from the empire being brought back to the industry of Bradford and Sheffield. The resource acquisition of the developed world (led by America now) is still called imperialism though, and not just as a pejorative from the left, even as it is directed from liberal democracies. But yeah Europe isn’t overtly colonialist any more. Apart, maybe, from the Ukraine activity.

But Ukraine is an easy example of how capitalism is still killing people, as we know a lot of money was spent to support a coup there with, I assume, an eye to profit in addition to any political motive.

Yes I agree it wasn’t just communist involved in the major 20thC democides, I was showing that I wasn’t unaware of it because someone always moans about it.

[Enterprise]

@GreasyJack

I agree that what happened with the putative Marxist states doesn’t necessarily affect intellectual Marxism. However, I think the bigger problem isn’t just the terror of the “Marxist” states, it’s that every attempt during the 20th century to make something other than a liberal democratic government with a free market economy and some sort of welfare state ended in failure while the standard of living in those democracies kept going up and up. Grandiose ideologies in general are just a hard sell these days.

Well, that depends on the ideology, doesn’t it? It’s quite clear that free market ideologies are alive and well, and various forms of anti-government ones too–neoliberalism, in simple terms. And it also seems a bit much to say that “every” non-liberal democratic government in the 20th century has “ended in failure”. What’s your standard?

I do think that the success of those welfare states in creating a stable middle class is something Marx clearly did not anticipate. Sure, these days with globalization the middle class in the developed world seems to be somewhat on the retreat, but it’s growing hugely in the developing world. Everyone loves to bitch about the status quo but I really doubt we’ll see a situation anytime soon in which large numbers of people are dissatisfied enough to roll the dice on anyone’s ideological-based governmental experiments as they were during the 20th century.

I love how you use “ideological-based” as a kind of slur. Every government is ideological-based. Mine and yours are based on a fairly conservative, largely free-market, economically liberal ideology that will largely take the interests of corporations over those of the people. This is not the “practical” or “natural” way of thinking about things any more than a socialist variant would be. But I agree that Marx underestimated (in so far as he estimated anything at all) the resilience of the system, and I am not sure that it will collapse any time soon.

And on the democide front, like I said above it’s not just Communism, it’s EVERY movement that cropped up in the 20th century to oppose the liberal democratic capitalist version of modernity led to economic stagnation at best, butchery at worst.

It would be surprising if they did not, given that the liberal democratic capitalist version of modernity led to butchery and economic stagnation, too, the first immediately, the second eventually…

[Enterprise]

@GreasyJack

Capitalism requires labor not be too expensive, but there’s no rule that says workers have to be living in abject poverty. It’s true that pure unregulated capitalism tends to move wealth disproportionately towards capital, but western democracies have historically been able to hinder and mitigate that process. In the days before globalization really took off, western countries got along well enough using mostly home-grown labor that enjoyed a relatively high standard of living. Sure, corporations these days prefer to use cheap overseas labor, but capitalism got along just fine without it. Eventually as the standard of living goes up in those countries, that cheap labor is going to go away. That process is already starting in China, as the really bottom-of-the-barrel manufacturing jobs are leaving for other countries.

There’s no rules period in capitalism. There are only logics; and as you note, the logic of capitalism tends towards exploitation. State constraints (which certainly need not be democractic) can put a damper on this, which is Zizeks point with regard to China, I think–China is unlikely to do so, given that it has no democratic oversight that would force it to.

But you are constantly mixing issues here: countries, democracies, capitalism, are not the same, and not necessarily related things. Western “countries” got along well enough fora while on home-grown labor with relatively high standards of living, until profits necessarily declined, and capitalism (which needs profits) moved its production elsewhere to increase profits again. It’s not like you can say “if only for not having globalization, we could have had a working capitalism”. Globalization is a logical necessity for a system that needs to expand in order to retain its profit margins. You can’t just freeze a version of capitalism that you think is good–it must move on. And this is not even mentioning who paid the bill for the high standards of living in the West–the countries from which the West drew cheap resources and to which it exported products the prevented those countries to build up their own industries.

[Ramira]

@Enterprise

Well, that depends on the ideology

No it is an empirical observation.

Perhaps it is deeply uncomfortable for the ideology but the reality of history is this - to which the marxists always seem to respond “but the real marxism was not applied…”

I love how you use “ideological-based” as a kind of slur.

it is an accurate usage to highlight a govenrment and movement that has an explicit and an organized political philosophy - an idealoogy - actively motivating it and actively structuring its choices in the application of the policies and the conception of its policies.

We know from actual real history that this form of government politics, this has actively different characteristics from politics that are not consciously so motivated

Every government is ideological-based.

this is an assertion, based we can assume on a definition that it is likely not he and not I would agree with.

It is not the case every government has a structured and active ideology governing it.

The pragmatic and non-ideological politics are of a different character than those of the philosophising ideological movements.

@Enterprise

There’s no rules period in capitalism.

Of course not, the ordinary word outside of the special political meanings of the marxists invented simply describes a market system.

As this is simply a description of an evolved system of the social interaction for an effective economic exchange, and not a philosophizing system asserted by an organized body it of course does not have the “rules” - other than some general empirical observations that come from the reality of scarcity and the interaction of this supply and an every subjective demand.

After this, rules are things human organizations will develop to channel and organize within a physical reality.

the logic of capitalism tends towards exploitation.

No, it does not. Your definition of “exploitation” is false on a broken theory that was abandoned by all economists except the marxists over 100 years.

Of course all human systems that have evolved since we have left the stage of the family bands have had aspects of an elite group that pulls to itself more resources, which one could give the name exploitation (to adopt not a political philosophy’s peculiar thinking, we can simply use a dictionary definition "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

Since we see behaviour like this even among the cousin primate groups, we can suspect it is deeply programmed. So naively expecting a mere political philosophy to resolve is going to have the same results of the past 100+ years.

[Ramira]

@MrQwertyasd

Europe isn’t overtly colonialist any more. Apart, maybe, from the Ukraine activity.

yes it is a pity the russians are engaging in an imperial endeavor like they have in the Caucusus to defend their imperial

But Ukraine is an easy example of how capitalism is still killing people

,
Capitalism created the Russian and the ukrainian ethnic nationalisms???

What a very interesting idea to have invented.

[Enterprise]

@Ramira

No it is an empirical observation.

Perhaps it is deeply uncomfortable for the ideology but the reality of history is this - to which the marxists always seem to respond “but the real marxism was not applied…”

Okay, my last reply to you, friend Ramira: it’s pretty clear you do not wish to engage in debate, only in witnessing. Honestly, I’m not sure why you bother. You come in here to say, effectively: “You’re using words wrongly, because the way I use these words is different and correct!” “You’ve no knowledge of history, because the way I interpret history is different and correct!” “You want to debate things that cannot be debated, because I have already decided what the correct empirical observation is!”

So let me quickly, just for my own conscience’s sake, say this. It is clear that you lack any sophisticated understanding of any of the following terms: ideology, capitalism, exploitation, and empiricity, beyond the ideologically-influenced understandings you’ve been fed. That’s sad, but common. We could debate these issues, and my offer to you to exchange our understandings of our respective positions stands, but until you come interest in debate, rather than witnessing, I’m bowing out of speaking to you.

[Ramira]

What is not empirical about the observation he made? It is the empirical truth.

I am not impressed by pompous assertions about having or not having “sophisticated” understandings of terms. the ordinary language is fine for me, I have enough of the university degrees to not been impressed by the smoke screen of the assertions about the ‘sophistication.’

We have an assertion of a meaning of the word “exploitation” based on a definition arising from the labor theory of value that all but the marxists abandoned as a theoretical failure in economics, and this by the end of the 19e century.

This is a sterile departure for a supposed “sophistication.”

Even more sterile is arch philosophizing word play, dressed in a claim of ‘sophistication’ to a claim on a higher pedestal avoid simple empirical realities observable from the actual history.

The linked discussionshows the same pattern, it is not debating…

A dialogue of the deaf is not a debate, is a masturbation by at least one party.

[Enterprise]

Incidentally, I dug up this: Slavoj Zizek on authoritarian capitalism in the London Review of Books.

Until now, capitalism has always seemed to be inextricably linked with democracy; it’s true there were, from time to time, episodes of direct dictatorship, but, after a decade or two, democracy again imposed itself (in South Korea, for example, or Chile). Now, however, the link between democracy and capitalism has been broken.

An interesting read in the typical Zizekian vein, going from French Maoist philosopher Alain Badiou to Kung Fu Panda in just a few lines. I’m not sure I’m buying it all, but it’s an interesting read. Warning, though: it requires a bit of effort, because it needs to be read. Also, if you’ve already decided what’s true, don’t bother going there.

[tomndebb]

@MrQwertyasd

You sound like a snob.

You are out of line. Stop it.

= = =

Enterprise and Ramira, knock it off. Arguing over why you are not going to argue is pointless. Dial back the personal comments in your posts and stick to actually debating the topic without those personal remarks.

[ /Moderating ]

[Jonathan_Chance]

Never mind. Tom got here first.

[Enterprise]

Just a quick pointer to what you mean by “personal comments” and “insults”, please? No snark, I’m just not getting what I should knock off. This: “you lack any sophisticated understanding of any of the following terms”? If so, apologies…I figured that this was merely a statement of what I perceive to be facts, but I could probably have said “your posts evince a lack of understanding,” or something.

[scabpicker]

Not to JR. mod, but to be helpful.

As a example: instead of accusing them of not understanding a definition, try supplying the definition of the term or an explanation of the concept that you’re using. If you’re using a “sophisticated” understanding, it’s pretty useless if you keep it to yourself.

[Enterprise]

@scabpicker

Not to JR. mod, but to be helpful.

As a example: instead of accusing them of not understanding a definition, try supplying the definition of the term or an explanation of the concept that you’re using. If you’re using a “sophisticated” understanding, it’s pretty useless if you keep it to yourself.

Well, but not providing definitions isn’t an insult, though it’s admittedly bad style in a debate (which I’m still looking for!). But I provided a requested explanation for my use of exploitative, which was dismissed thusly:

Your definition of “exploitation” is false on a broken theory that was abandoned by all economists except the marxists over 100 years.

Now, if asked to explain, I try my best to do so, but Ramira is evidently not interested in explanations. He simply declares meanings for the terms, e.g. for capitalism (“the ordinary word outside of the special political meanings of the marxists invented simply describes a market system”); and that was both self-avowedly an “ordinary” unterstanding (such as it is, anyway) of the word, and made it seem like he’s not especially interested in my definitions of these terms. It seemed to me that to provide more definitions (only to have them called “false,” which makes absolutely no sense, given that that’s just the way I used the word) thereafter would not be a particularly successful gambit–not to mention that understanding=|definitions.

[scabpicker]

@Enterprise

Well, but not providing definitions isn’t an insult, though it’s admittedly bad style in a debate (which I’m still looking for!). But I provided a requested explanation for my use of exploitative, which was dismissed thusly:

But implying that they’re somehow too unsophisticated to understand the definition that you’re using isn’t debating at all. They didn’t imply that you couldn’t understand the term as understood now, they said the way you’re using it is generally not the way it’s used in economics today.

The best advice I can give is: either prove that the way you’re using the word hasn’t been generally discarded by economists but the followers of Marx, or understand that you’ll need to use a different term to make your point clear.

[Ramira]

@scabpicker

But implying that they’re somehow too unsophisticated to understand the definition that you’re using isn’t debating at all.

Indeed.

As for ‘asserting’ definitions, I have simply quoted some non-ideological dictionary type definitions such as for capitalism definitions: *" an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are privately owned and operated via profit and loss calculation (price signals) through the price system." *

If someone wants to use a specific ideological definition, fine, but I have no reason to accept it on its own assertion and I do not have any reason to accept ‘special’ or asserted ‘sophisticated’ definitions or ‘understanding.’

Particularly when the source is using an economic theory as the basis for a supposed “debate” that is out of date and failed in empirical research since over a century, outside of a narrow and special political ideology, and in a prior discussion on essentially the same subject the same assertions were made, the same wounded pretensions and there was no sign of a real engagement with the modern economics.

The case of the use of the word exploitation is clear enough.

[MrQwertyasd]

So is Zizek is right or wrong ?

[Enterprise]

@scabpicker

But implying that they’re somehow too unsophisticated to understand the definition that you’re using isn’t debating at all. They didn’t imply that you couldn’t understand the term as understood now, they said the way you’re using it is generally not the way it’s used in economics today.

The best advice I can give is: either prove that the way you’re using the word hasn’t been generally discarded by economists but the followers of Marx, or understand that you’ll need to use a different term to make your point clear.

Two things: I did not imply with anything I said that I thought anybody was personally too unsophisticated to understand my definitions. “You lack a sophisticated understanding” does not mean “you’re too dumb to understand,” else I would hardly have wasted my time by offering to participate in an exchange on the matter of values, no? And second, the fact that “they” are evidently not interested in taking my definitions doesn’t strike you as more substantively problematical? I defined exploitation; someone else claims the definition is “false”. What am I to do, in your mind? Just use a different term that doesn’t mean what I need to express?

And exactly why should I prove that economists have not discarded a term (which term are we talking about, anyway?)!? What does that prove, or not? And WHICH economists? Neoliberal ones? Keynesian ones? Marxist ones? There’s all of these. Here’s one (Wikipedia) Marxist economist who insists on the necessity to speak of exploitation, for example. Does that do anything at all?

Again: I am perfectly happy to use whatever terms are necessary to debate these things, but not on a basis where the other party gets to decide what terms are amenable to them for nebulous (and yes, ideological, just like mine) reasons. (The Wikipedia definition of capitalism which has already been supplied is not too shabby, but not particularly great either, certainly not in the abbreviated version supplied here (to list price discrimination before wage labor and capital accumulation makes no sense, for example).)

[Ramira]

Try not to create straw men in the mournful pretension of being wronged.

@Enterprise

And exactly why should I prove that economists have not discarded a term

If one ceases obfuscation it is clear that this is about the word exploitation. There is no statement that the term has been discarded (or not). The issues is a particular definition asserted based on what has been discarded by economics, and that is the labor theory of value - by all but the orthodox marxists, and this since over 100 years.

This is relevant because I asked for what the definition of exploitative based on this bald assertion thrown into the discussion:

Capitalism is necessarily, logically, an inherently exploitative system (the only question being, these days, who the people being exploited are),

the question was

define “inherently exploitative” please.

of course by the framing it was easy to guess the person was relying on the typical old bankrupt marxism, but it was useful to get the response.

you answered quoting someone using the labor theory of value, in all its failure:

@Enterprise

“The excess of the value that labourers embody in commodities relative to the value they require for their own reproduction measures the exploitation of labour in production” (Harvey, Limits to Capital, 23). Capitalism requires wage labor, which, in order so that profits may accrue to their employer, must be paid less than the value of their labor.

Ergo, the assertion thrown in is based on a failed and disused economical theory (as was laid out by multiple persons in the other thread which is linked here and which were hand waived away within a package of very ironical complaining).

this being clarified there is not anything to add, particularly as I linked the same conversation occurred with good inputs and there is no sign any substantive information was absorbed, so what point would there be in repeating such futility?

the source of the assertion being exposed, one understands enough.

Again: I am perfectly happy to use whatever terms are necessary to debate … certainly not in the abbreviated version supplied here (to list price discrimination before wage labor and capital accumulation makes no sense, for example).)

Actually it quite clear that there is nothing but a demarche to put everything in the marxist frame and otherwise use that rhetoric… (it is a repitition of mischaracterisation, the supposed no sense of the listing of price discrimination is merely citing one of many points that was not engaged or hand waived away in the other thread to highlight why repeating the marxist analysis circling is sterile as the arch idea of a debate)

[Enterprise]

Ramira, before I try to engage you again, please be so kind as to answer me two questions: are you willing to talk to me on the basis that the things I talk about *may *have some validity, even just hypothetically? If not, I don’t see the point. I also don’t see the need for your perpetual hostility. And secondly, would you terribly mind losing the perpetual accusations of intellectual dishonesty without clearly pinpointing where you see them? I asked an honest question of scabpicker, because I was not sure what his point was about. If it is about exploitation, ask you insist, would you kindly tell me why the Wikipedia cite of a Yale economist who is perfectly satisfied using a fully Marxist-derived version of exploitation to describe contemporary capitalism isn’t good enough for you?

We can still have a debate about the topics of your choice with regard to this. You’ve refused so far to enumerate why you think the labor theory of value doesn’t work (in the other thread, my discussion partners had a bit of a hard time understanding what the theory said, so I would be happy to see what you think about it in particular). Here are the ground rules I would propose for such a debate: you will cease using such terms as “obfuscation” and “straw man” to describe my arguments, unless you can describe how they are (I don’t even know, honestly, what you’re talking about right now); and in lieu of simply dismissing my arguments out of hand as “bankrupt”, “failed and dismissed”, and so on, unless you have yourself given evidence, or at least some reasoning for this, you provide substantive rebuttals to them. And I’ll do the same.

I get that it’s easy to just say “we’ve provided THIS significant input, whereas YOU have only said the same old trite nonsense over and over,” but please see that it looks exactly the same way from my vantage point. And yet, here I am.

[Ramira]

Why I do not think the labor theory does not work?

This is silly.

Again, modern economics of all types except for the doctrinaire marxistes discarded the concept over a century ago.

The multiple failings were already pointed out in the last thread. It is enough to note that this discussion made no impact at all.